(during a tangent about genocide of native Americans in the 1800s, unrelated to the main discussion)
We taught the Native Americans Christian values and saved them from their separation from God. We also gave them vast tracts of free land where they could govern themselves. How is that "genocide"?
[...]same sex marriage won't affect you at all. I wish it would, you might learn something.
It may affect my mental state.
It might improve it.
Why do you really care this much?
I am a devout Christian who loves America and traditional values.
Liberty is not good when it is the liberty to defy God.
Also, the Nazis were not Christians they were Nordic pagans.
(On the Canadian supreme court ruling that catholic prayer in city council meetings is unconstitutional)
I agree with this, the Prayer should be Christian, not Catholic.
There is nothing wrong with religious government, what is bad is a government that is particularly supportive of a certain denomination of Christianity. :P
Uh. Plenty wrong with it in a secular nation.
Who said we need secular nations?
Saying that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is no different than saying that the word wood is "the hard fibrous material that forms the main substance of the trunk or branches of a tree or shrub." Are we shaming rocks because we won't call them wood?
A pathetic attempt at false equivalence, not only trying to anthromorphize non-sapient objects but implying that the only allowed marriages are between man and woman is a scientific fact.
Christians have a definition of what marriage is. There is no shaming involved when we point out that a relationship between a man and another man does not meet that definition. Ala rock is not wood.
(on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, widely seen as anti-gay)
I think it's unfortunate that the radical left has painted this law as an "anti-gay" act. RFRAs used to be bipartisan -- noncontroversial acts to prohibit government agencies from infringing on people's right to adhere to their religious beliefs.
The future belongs to whoever pops out the most children. It's simple as that. It's not a matter of values, cultures or politics, or of complicated theological debate. This is a matter of having kids. And if you look at the United States, the conservatives are winning. People who belong to relatively conservative faiths (like conservative Christians, Mormons, Muslims and Orthodox Jews) are popping out between two and four children per woman in the United States. People who are atheist or belong to a progressive religion have ceased to hit the 1.5 mark now.
The future, boys and girls, is conservative, in religion as in society.
***
It seems to have been established that there is a strong correlation between the political views of parents and the political views of their children. This is not believed to be fully genetic, although genetic predisposition has been shown in recent years to have a significant though not decisive effect on the general political direction that a person will take. Instead, it is believed to be mainly cultural, and to have to do with the process of socialization. This counts even more if you take the stereotypical view of religious American parents being very vocal and strong about their political beliefs.
And in any case, consider the state of the world, because in a 'globalized' world whatever trend is set in the world in general will affect every individual nation. In the last twenty years, the percentage of atheists or agnostics in the world has decreased. More people, relatively speaking, are now religious. This effect is especially common among African Christians, Asian Christians, more conservative Hindus, American Mormons, and nearly all Muslim groups in the world. These are the people you'll see more and more in corporations, in diplomacy, in politics and in trade. Twenty years down the line, they will decide - much more than they do now - on matters of life and death, war and peace, poverty and prosperity. They are your future and mine.
It is very unfortunate that Christianity is declining in America. Young people are being indoctrinated in anti-Christian views. If this trend doesn't stop, America may become like the USSR. I am glad to be Christian. Young white people appear to be the most affected by this indoctrination.
(Discussion on how many jews the holocaust killed)
The majority of Jews in prewar Europe resided in eastern Europe. The largest Jewish communities in this area were in Poland, with about 3,000,000 Jews (9.5%); the European part of the Soviet Union, with 2,525,000 (3.4%); and Romania, with 756,000 (4.2%). The Jewish population in the three Baltic states totaled 255,000: 95,600 in Latvia, 155,000 in Lithuania, and 4,560 in Estonia. Here, Jews comprised 4.9%, 7.6%, and 0.4% of each country's population, respectively, and 5% of the region's total population.
In prewar central Europe, the largest Jewish community was in Germany, with about 500,000 members (0.75% of the total German population). This was followed by Hungary with 445,000 (5.1%), Czechoslovakia with 357,000 (2.4%), and Austria with 191,000, most of whom resided in the capital city of Vienna (2.8%).
In western Europe the largest Jewish communities were in Great Britain, with 300,000 Jews (0.65%); France, with 250,000 (0.6%); and the Netherlands, with 156,000 (1.8%). Additionally, 60,000 Jews (0.7%) lived in Belgium, 4,000 (0.02%) in Spain, and 1,200 (0.02%) in Portugal. Close to 16,000 Jews lived in Scandinavia, including 6,700 (0.11%) in Sweden, 5,700 (0.15%) in Denmark, 1,800 (0.05%) in Finland, and 1,400 (0.05%) in Norway. In southern Europe, Greece had the largest Jewish population, with about 73,000 Jews (1.2%).
There were also significant Jewish communities in Yugoslavia (68,000, or 0.49%), Italy (48,000, or 0.11%), and Bulgaria (48,500, or 0.8%). 200 Jews (0.02%) lived in Albania.
Do the math. Even if Hitler killed every single one of these Jewish people. It would barely be over 6.5 million. Also you act like the Nazi's killed every single Jewish person in the USSR. We are talking about 2.5 million people. It wasn't like the soviets paused the war and said "Here take all these people because Uncle Joe is anti-Semitic." Fun fact Stalin wasn't even anti Semitic until the late 40s. There was never one pogrom or purge targeting the Jews during his reign.
Submitter's note: add them up, like he didn't
The United States is not at all right-wing on the world stage. The United States is, by now, idealistic and centre-left on the world stage, sending massive amounts of foreign aid (money, food, hospitals, schools, vehicles, vaccines) all over the world and being susceptible to calls for help from rebels that American politicians naively think want to remove dictators from power. If you want right-wing countries on the world stage, try India (which constantly threatens Pakistan with war over the border situation and Pakistani-funded terrorism), China (which is holding on rather bitterly to its western reaches, especially the lands of the Tibetans and the Uyghurs), Russia (which makes no secret of standing for the interests of ethnic Russians first and foremost) or Brazil (which, also, stands for its own interests).
What we see happening in the world today is a shift in power from the centre-left idealists who want to meddle with the idea that it'll make the world a better place (Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada) to the nations that think the world would be a better place if every nation looked out primarily for its own interests (China, Russia, Brazil, India).
in response to a poster saying that The Holocaust was ideologically driven, not economical, and borne out of German racialism.
That's too simplistic. It fits in with the narrative we're taught at school - that Hitler and his ilk were the Great Satan of the twentieth century. Actually, the story is a bit more nuanced. Hitler believed that almost every race in the world could and should improve itself to the best of its abilities. In fact, he supposedly remarked that China's history was more dignified and deserving of respect than Europe's. At first, the Nazis did not seek to exterminate the Jews - instead, they sought an orderly expulsion. But as the war started sucking up too many resources and stories came out about high-ranking Jews in Allied nations stirring up hatred of Germany and aiding the Communists, the authorities decided that they needed a brutal, quick final solution.
In fact, the Nazis were not the only ones who believed in such theories. In the last months of the war, General Patton grew convinced that the Germans were respectable people and not the true enemy, and that a lot of people in Washington (most notably Morgenthau, a Jew who tried to push for effective democide against millions of Germans) were preventing him from taking Berlin and large parts of Eastern Europe because they wanted Germany to suffer. At the end of his life, Patton seems to have hated the Jews as much as Hitler did before the start of World War II. And then there's Churchill, who believed that a specific but powerful group of Jews had orchestrated the Bolshevik revolutions in Russia in a frontal attack on civilization.
There are a lot of things wrong with what the Nazis did, and the world would have been better off without them. But don't get too simplistic about them.
(Gay rights discussion)
There is a right way to fit lego pieces. One can fight for the right to join two pieces from the back or from the front and it may seem like the politically correct thing to say or fight. We can even pass laws to say we recognize that lego bricks can be joined front to front and back to back, and that everyone who says no are bigots who have a narrow view of how lego pieces should be stuck. We can even hide behind free speech, by arguing for lego pieces to be joined however they like, and saying that pro-conventional lego builders are silencing the voice of liberal lego builders and that they should shut up (denying pro-conventional lego builders the right of free speech in the process).
But the reality is that there is only one way to naturally put lego pieces together. Sure, pass your laws, silence the naysayers, tell tales of happiness, and all that... but lego pieces were never made that way.
The US is a christian nation, therefore the definition of marriage should be defined by the christian church.
[[...]
The United States can't use the Christian definition because that would require respecting an establishment of religion, which is banned by the First Amendment.]
The 1st amendment is freedom to religion, not freedom from religion.
Of course it's not. Freedom and Liberty is literally at stake here! the POTUS Obama has hijacked this great country to turn us into an islamic hellhole. Just wait until the ISIS hoards illegally immigrate into the country and start putting sharia law all over the place. Obama is gonna allow this to happen. But he will be subtle about it.
[Well aren't you a credit to the American education system.
Just one problem Sherlock: Obama's a Christian. Fairly devout too.]
Christian in name, but Muslim in secret. If you wanna be a politician in America, you got to be Christian or else. But it depends whether one is faithful to Christ or not. Obama is different. He's a Kenyan Muslim. Not a Christianized African American.
As you all know, I believe this to be an invasion. The Africans and Middle Easterners who come to Europe through the Meditteranean - most are uneducated, young men of the Sunni faith - have nothing to offer us and serve only to destabilize Europe.
Now, if I am to believe people here I'm just a conspiracy theorist, but today I learned that the Islamic State (which now controls several coastal towns in Libya) has actually been making plans to send 500,000 migrants to Europe at once and to hide among them large numbers of fighters who, in the ensuing chaos, would be able to escape the authorities and wreak havoc in major Italian cities. The Italian government is now putting even more paramilitary police and soldiers in the big cities and near major tourist sites. So, evidently there is a big problem here, and there are relatively strong militant groups conspiring to use these migrants as a means to destabilize Europe and smuggle in hundreds or even thousands of fighters who aim to kill an awful lot of people.
Therefore, I will repeat what I have been saying for years: this is an invasion, and we should treat it like one. Deport the migrants back to Africa immediately and shoot any and all human traffickers you find. That is the only way to avoid the full economic, political, cultural and military collapse of Europe.
[Ah strict interpretive fundamentalism. It ruins all.]
It doesn't ruin anything. Fundamentalism means just that - the fundamentals of the religion. It's the religion, but without the human arrogance. It's the religion as it is, not as individual people want it to be. Fundamentalist Islam is the real Islam, and all moderation in Islam - or any religion, for that matter - comes at the expense of the theology of the religion itself. Moderation always means you ignore the fundamentals of the religion, which is why I do not understand how anyone who adheres to any religion can be 'moderate' and still claim to adhere to the original religion whose rules they violate. I know Christians who watch pornography, and that's just as strange as Muslim men who take Jews or Christians for friends or refuse to spend money or risk their lives fighting for Allah.
[Um, how is having to allow gay marriages tyranny? Because it sounds like you have a very warped view of what tyranny is...]
First of all its not marriage, the definition of marriage is one man, one woman. Secondly, forcing these state judges to do something that's not right is a form of tyranny, which is something gays are getting used to doing. It's absurd that 1 percent of the population is getting so much attention and making such a mess out of society, but it is appropriate for these government officials to be standing up to it
[Your definitions are all fucked up.
Secondly, the state can do what it wants; religion doesn't have any play in how different communities that are non-religious have equal rights as the religious.
The State can "force" these judges to do it because these judges are not the fucking law, the Federal Government is.
Are we done with this strawman argument or are you going to keep pumping up misinformed bullshit?]
It's unconstitutional to change marriage definitions, as it fringes on the rights of actual married people, religious institutions, and already exists precedents. When the supreme Court rules against fake marriages, read what they write and perhaps you'll understand. And if they don't rule against them, the resulting protest of millions of people will teach THEM how America feels.
(abortion debate. long story)
[I assume you think that you should also be forced to watch a slaughterhouse video before eating meat? Or a video of child slavery before buying chocolate or coffee? Or a video of war conflict before buying a diamond?]
I don't mind those videos of slaughterhouses, they don't really bother me.
Child slavery....meh....they're not usually white so it doesn't bother me.
Also those wars and conflicts are usually in Africa.....doesn't bother me either.
I love how evolutionists never, ever look at their theories flaws, and ruthlessly attack all alternate viewpoints. Intelligent design is a reality, in my opinion, and it is backed by a substantial amount of proof.
I'd check out the book "Evolutions Achilles heels", so that you can at least grasp where I'm coming from.
[and i love how god intelligently designed a bug specifically to eat human brains and how sometimes babies are born without brains. actually, the abortion debate would probably be a lot easier for you if god didn't make it so that there are so many dead at birth babies. maybe he should have designed them better? i dunno. i guess he works in mysterious ways, and the mysterious way just so happens to be brainless babies. bit of an own goal there for team god.]
These things are caused by the fall of man. Originally, all was perfect. These things entered the world though sin.
Okay reading the ballots there are a lot of idiots here
Same sex marriage= Same sex Intercourse and that (BLEH) = No reproduction rate = DEATH OF HUMANITY
Lord save me and the 14 people that actually have common sense
this is what i feel the people who passed this law keep doing:
I support freedom to be Christian. I never claimed to like the idea of having freedom to be a non-Christian.
The fact that atheism exists offends me.
[Get over it. Are we to start limiting rights to Atheists now?]
I would support that.
[Law, journalism, psychology, communications, etc. are not useless.]
I'd argue that journalism (the best journalists are those not trained academically), psychology (if you want to make an actual difference in the world, you need psychiatry) and communications (like journalism, it's a field of doubtful practical advantage) are fairly useless, along with sociology (social and economic Marxism), cultural anthropology (cultural relativism studies), philosophy (Neo-Marxist studies), free time management (it's an actual field of study here, but the people who study it are typically unemployable), history (it's a hobby, not a profession, unless it's combined with archaeology), modern second languages (hardly useful to study a language that tens of millions of people in the world already speak), European Studies (although I will say that it's a good way to get into the right parasitic networks in Brussels) and criminology (a field of study that manages to present itself as being practical, but turns out to be even more ivory-tower-theoretical than sociology).
There is no place for the far right or neofascism in a progressive 21st century Europe.
Did we ever ask for this progressivism, though? Did we ask to have parts of our countries occupied by millions of people from what are literally the world's most superstitious, economically lethargic and socially conservative places in the world under the guise of tolerance and diversity? Did we ask to get neighbours who slaughter goats in their living rooms for the glory of a man who died in the year 632? Did we ask for shopping centres full of men without jobs who scream at our women and try to steal wallets and phones from our men? Did we ask for this ghastly social justice ideology that's festering in Europe now, with us being asked to start being more 'tolerant' to those who steal from us, harrass us and save no effort telling us what'll happen when they're in charge?
I'm done crawling, whether that's before Jews or Muslims or Gypsies or European Union bureaucrats.
Risottia wrote:
As I said earlier, Jews are over-represented in politics. Some people - not most, but certainly a significant minority - feel that there was some form of intention by the Jews to destabilize and definitively destroy all the nations of Europe as a revenge for the Holocaust. Fortunately, though, people tend to blame their financial misfortunes on the more general 'bankers' without mentioning the extreme over-representation of Jewish individuals (Rothschild, Bernanke, Madoff, Goldman, Sachs and others come to mind) within financial institutions, and their social and cultural problems on the social democrats in their countries.
So the Elders of Zion conspiracy.
Nothing like that. This particular theory holds that there are many Jews who are angry at Europeans for the Holocaust, and have found themselves in positions of power after the war. The theory isn't entirely nonsensical, because there was one Jewish man by the name of Henry Morgenthau who almost succeeded in having the United States pass a plan to destroy all German industry, have tens of millions of Germans starved to death and turn Germany into a pastoral country. It was only when the media heard about it and there was public outrage (Patton said it could not reconcile it with his "Anglo-Saxon conscience" to punish German individuals for the crimes of the collective) that the plan was softened a bit. Even then, countless German families were thrown out of their homes and German factories were forbidden from producing almost anything that could possibly be used by an army for ten tot twenty years.
Anyway, this theory goes on to state that it wasn't just Morgenthau, and that people like Laurent Fabius (foreign minister of France), Jan Fischer (former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic), John Key (Prime Minister of New Zealand), Ed Miliband (leader of the Labour Party in Britain), David Miliband (former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in Britain), Michael Howard (former leader of the Conservative Party), Nigel Lawson (former Chancellor of the Exchequer and key proponent of deregulation in Britain), Leon Brittan (former Vice President of the European Commission for Britain), John Bercow (Speaker of the House of Commons in Britain), Henry Kissinger (you know who that is), Daniel Cohn-Bendit (former leader of the Greens in the European Parliament, once admitted to having abused toddlers), Pierre Moscovici (former Minister of Finance in France, oversaw the near-collapse of France's economy under Hollande) and Dominique Strauss-Kahn (former head of the International Monetary Fund) are still working in the best interests of their own ethnic community and personal friends and family members instead of the best interests of the nations they nominally serve.
Personally, I'm an adherent of a different theory, first uttered - I believe - by Winston Churchill in the early 1920s. It holds that there are three main types of Jews. The first type is the 'National Jew', who considers himself a citizen of the nation he lives in first and foremost. He can be a Briton and a Jew, just as someone else can be a Briton and a Christian. The second type is the 'Zionist Jew', who considers himself an ethnic Jew first and foremost and wants a homeland for himself. These Jews mainly live in Israel nowadays. Then there is the third category, and that's where a lot of these conspiracy theories come from. The third category are the, quote, "international and for the most part atheistic Jews". Because they have no national identity and no credible religious identity to speak of either, they latch onto either extreme materialism (bankers) or extreme ideologies (especially Communism throughout the twentieth century) and put the weight of their intellect and networks behind those new goals.
Essential for 'tolerance' is that you do not personally like what you tolerate - otherwise it would be called acceptance. Tolerance is a sign of a weak society - "I do not like what you do, but I feel emasculated and powerless and therefore I will let you do it."
Top
The skeptical view is absolutely insane and illogical. You would need proof that Zimbabwe exists! Or some other country. All of the maps could be lying you know
[OP of the "Who is White?" thread]
What ethnicities and groups of people do you consider to belong to the White race? This will be an important consideration for the future leaders of the future resurgent National Socialist state in Europe.
I consider the white race to be made up of members of lightskinned ethnic groups that originate from Europe. However, there are some exceptions: the Lapps are Siberian/Tungusic migrants: the Finns are the descendants Mongolic tribes and Siberian/Tungusic groups that had migrated westward into modern day Finland and mixed throughout a long period of cohabitation: the Magyars/Huns, as the name suggests, are the descendants of a cohort the Turanic Huns of Central Asia which had migrated west to the Pannonian Plain and were later separated from the rest of the Huns; the Bulgars are the descendants of Mongolian central asian tribes; the Albanian Shqiptars are a mix of Turkic Azeris and the Turks themselves; and the Georgians and Armenians experience deep racial admixture throughout the entire populations of their respective ethnicities. Of course, the Jews and Gypsies are not White either.
I also believe that a considerable fraction of Spaniards and Italians are not white, due to heavy Mohametan/Arab admixture in the case of the Spaniards and heavy African admixture in the case of the Italians.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Here's my evil, racist take on the matter. You can help some nations, but you cannot help others. Some people, whether it is by their limited intelligence or by the suffocating influence of their culture or religion, unable to build a productive society. A good example: in the early 1950s, South Korea and Uganda were equally poor. Since then, Uganda has received more aid from abroad than South Korea. But because (1) it is part of the Korean culture to want to work hard and build a functioning, orderly society and (2) the IQ of the average Korean is at least a good twenty-five points higher than the IQ of the average Ugandan, North Korea is much more developed than Uganda and South Korea is one of the most developed countries on earth.
As for the culture that is prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa, I don't expect much. All of the economic growth in that part of the world is either because of sheer population explosion or because of foreign aid and remissions from migrants living in Europe. And what little economic prosperity and social order there is now will most likely be shattered within one or two decades, in another round of bloodshed. Look at Nigeria, for example, the largest African country by population. People have had to temper their enormously optimistic beliefs about Nigeria because there's the religious unrest that no one but hardcore racists like myself would have been able to predict. Two groups of people fight in an African country, and the result is more political unrest and therefore another cycle of violence - who would have thought?
Vitaphone Racing wrote:
Their hatred of aboriginals and "boat people" is frankly astounding.
Why? Aboriginals are famous for spending tens of thousands of years on a beautiful, warm, fertile continent, burning nearly all the forests down and inventing the stick.
And now, there are literally ads running to tell Aboriginals not to drink petrol or sleep in the road.
[OP of the "In defense of Pol Pot" thread]
It seems like in the modern communist movement Pol Pot has become taboo, someone who must not be supported. However, I disagree. He took great efforts to rebuild the Cambodian nation from scratch under a socialist framework. The only reason he depopulated the cities is becauae Capitalism had so thoroughly corrupted Cambodia that it was necessary to reforge Cambodia from the ground up. Once a socialist foundation had been established, he would begin to remodernize the country but under a socialist, egalitarian manner.
Furthermore, the article below makes some excellent points about how Pol Pot's rule helped the millions of ordinary working Cambodians.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/18/pol-pot-revisited/
What is your opinion on this matter?
[In America, you find that this description is complete and utter humbug. We can live without Latinos killing Black People killing East Asians killing South Asians killing Arabs killing White people.]
A few things.
1. I mentioned cultures and beliefs, and I specifically and intentionally left out race. You are just trying to bait me here.
2. In the United States, the dominant culture is General American culture, derived from Anglo-Saxon culture with minor German influences although the political and demographic influence of Mexican and Central American culture is now growing.
3. In many parts of the United States, African-American subculture now differs enough from General American Culture to warrant riots between different communities. Their interests, values and beliefs have grown too far apart now, and they feel like they no longer owe allegiance to the United States or to the existing authorities.
4. The irony is that the United States has a history full of what I described here. First came the various Native American tribes, who had a habit of pushing each other around, expelling each other from prime hunting grounds and kicking each other to the ground every now and again. Then came the first Europeans, and generally they weren't too kind to the natives. Then came more Europeans, and before they could count to ten the Europeans were fighting each other. The Native Americans were pushed further and further west as European groups - who eventually united as one language and culture pushed out all other cultures and became dominant in the state - went for more and more prime hunting grounds and farming land.
[Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:
If they are fighting, I don't think it is because they inherently hate each other and want to kill each other, unless you are projecting yourself onto others.]
I doubt it. I think this applies to every place in the world at any time in history. There's an interesting field of study in archaeology that's based around figuring out how and when cultures supplanted and replaced each other based just on their pottery and their burials. This has been going on for literally tens of thousands of years, and it's typical human folly to think that it'll magically stop because "we're civilized now". It's not that people hate each other, it's that they're rivals, and eventually any culture that exists in an area will come to believe that the land is theirs. In the United States, you could say that, whenever you hear people in places like Ferguson speak of 'the community', you also hear them speak of the authorities and the rest of the United States as outsiders.
Finally, here's a nice song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY
Now there's a word I don't get - 'xenophobia'. In all instances where people of vastly different cultures and religions have had to live close together, the ultimate result was bloodshed, with one group becoming dominant over the others through a combination of violence and demographic supplantment. On a small scale, think the 'Zones Urbaines Sensibles'. On a larger scale, think Africa. You can't have people with vastly different cultures and beliefs live together in peace for any extended amount of time. They'll fight, and I think it's only natural to not want that to happen to your nation.
[You presented basic facts in a biased light. The reason why so many Blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crimes is due to poverty, pure and simple. Being the poorest socio-economic group, this causes the rate to increase. The fact many in America have deluded themselves into thinking they have no prejudice, along with institutional racism does not help.]
And I would take this for a self-evident truth, were it not for the fact:
1. That rural whites do not display the same rates of crime that urban blacks display;
2. That, in fact, Asians in Asia - who, per capita, are significantly less wealthy than American blacks - do not display the same rates of crime;
3. That the nature of many of the crimes committed disproportionately by blacks is not economic but violent or sexual;
4. That crimes of that nature also occur extremely often in Africa itself, more so than in nearly any other part of the world including some parts of the world currently embroiled in civil wars.
The funny thing is that Hispanics aren't much worse off than non-Hispanic whites. Considering that many of them show up on our doorstep with no English skills, often illiterate even in their own language, no math, no science, etc, they still have a lower unemployment, and higher median incomes than Blacks. Last time I looked at unemployment numbers, all non-Blacks were separated by about 1%, with Blacks falling several points behind everyone.
Because of this, I tend to agree Quintium. American Blacks are the permanent Democrat welfare class because of how their culture views this country. They've had more opportunities to pull themselves out of the cellar than any other non-white group, and yet every other ethnic group and subgroup surpasses them, including black immigrants. By the time Hispanics have increased their numbers to a point that they can completely overthrow whites in the voting booth, their wealth and education will have increased to the point that they are no longer dependent on the Democrat welfare state. If that happens, I doubt they will still be voting 70/30 for socialism, abortion, and gay rights based solely on their immigration views.
Of course, that's assuming the country doesn't fall apart before then. In the short-term, providing education, medical care, as well as TANF, SNAP, and housing assistance to the tens of millions of people flooding the country will fall mostly on the shrinking number of upper-middle class whites. The large influx of cheap labor will also continue to drive wage stagnation for the bottom half of the country, turning the current middle class into subsistence only households with little or no disposable income, which means even fewer middle class wallets to pay for it.
Wage stagnation is my biggest fear when it comes to the near and distant future. While inflation isn't obscenely high, it is there, and puts more and more pressure every year on those 20k-100k a year jobs that are hallmarks of the middle class. If 20 years from now, a loaf of bread is $5, and a gallon of gas is $10, someone making $20 an hour isn't going to be middle class anymore. Having millions of people show up willing to pour concrete, drive forklifts, and work sheet metal for minimum wage is going to make that even worse.
That's what we all think. If we did not all think that our proposed policies would be beneficial to society, we would not hold them unless we were deliberately evil. As a conservative who used to be a progressive socialist, I can honestly say that I used to believe in what I believed because I thought it was the right way to go. I did not change my beliefs because my sense of morality changed - I changed them because I realised that progressive socialism would be paradise in the short term, but hell to pay in the long term. I'll give you some examples.
1. The welfare state. It looks fantastic when it's being introduced, and I used to be heavily in favour of expanding it, but:
1.1 When people start paying more than half of their income in taxes and mandatory premiums, a society's economic life stagnates and purchasing power drops, making most people poorer.
1.2 Unfortunately, a generous welfare state draws the wrong kind of immigration when that is allowed - the kind that costs money instead of adding to the welfare state.
1.3 The welfare state replaces the community with the state; you no longer look to your family or friends for help, you look to the state. This ends genuine solidarity and establishes entitlement.
1.4 In multinational states, where different ethnic or religious groups live, this sense of entitlement causes anger, hostility and rioting when some groups refuse to pay for other groups.
2. Migration. It looks fantastic in the short term, and in the past supporting it loudly really made me smug, but:
2.1 As I said, adding significantly different groups of people to one state - especially if that state is prominent in economic redistribution - leads to conflict rather than harmony.
2.2 Some forms of migration might be good for the economy, but - and if you are a socialist I don't see how you could disagree - that prosperity ends up mainly with large businesses, while ordinary people are driven out of work in places where migrants, legally or illegally, are able to work for less than the cost of living for the nationals of their host country. Not to mention, because you are not likely to be swayed by an argument related to the people already in the host country, that the migrants are often exploited and have to work under dangerous or degrading circumstances.
2.3 Migration, unfortunately, usually leads to supplantment rather than addition, because values that run contrary to each other can and will not co-exist. One must become dominant, and if migration is not kept under control then the values of the migrants will eventually become dominant. Just ask the Britons. Usually, migration occurs from places with much more corruption and much less wealth than the places these migrants end up in. That means: with every migrant you take in, your country moves one step further towards lethargy, corruption and the very infighting many migrants fled.
3. Sexual freedom. It sounds fantastic in the short term, but:
3.1 A nation needs a stable population. For that, it needs women to give birth to, on average, somewhere between 2.1 (wealthy first-world nations) and 3.3 children (third world nations, accounting for excess deaths and physical and mental handicaps preventing people from reproducing later) children. In order to do that, women - at least European women and women of European descent - generally need stability.
3.2 The sexual revolution that took place in the second half of the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s, when everything sexual became acceptable, resulted also in: (1) women marrying at a higher average age, one at which they simply cannot have enough children, (2) women going to work, meaning they have smaller families, (3) more and more broken families coming to exist.
4. Religious tolerance. It sounds fantastic in the short term, but:
4.1 You must take into account that not everyone will tolerate you, and that those who you tolerate but who do not tolerate you might one day gain the upper hand over you;
4.2 That tolerance, in itself, does not negate the fact that people with significantly different beliefs and values will not be able to live in peace indefinitely, and that one group is bound to eventually gain enough strength either in numbers or in political or economic influence to banish the other group, and that those who are tolerant are also generally the weaker side in those schisms.
Thalbania wrote:
What do you consider your own primary value to be? How can we evaluate the better ones?
The reason I became a conservative was not initially moral, although I have learned to appreciate the moral side of the debate. I became a conservative because I realised the things conservatives want - stability, security, tradition and national sovereignty - are requirements for a functioning society. At a basic level, progressives are beneficial to a nation in the short term and superficially but create deep, dangerous schisms and demographic developments that will eventually break any nation up completely. At the same basic level, conservatives seem harsh and stubborn, but they have realised - rightly so, if you ask me - that you can't have a prosperous, safe and therefore happy society that produces great science and great works of art if you set that same society up for absolute disaster in the long term.
Fetus is a great term that the eugenicists and other fruitcakes made up to soften it up and garner more support. After all, liberals are all about changing the language. It's not sodomy, it's homosexuality. It's not disliking homosexuality for Biblical reasons, it's homo(human) phobia. It's not murder, it's abortion.
A nation is a group of people and a state is the political and diplomatic fiction that rules that nation. You should make a strong distinction between the two and acknowledge that the nation is what has caused Germany to be so productive. Germany is not prosperous and powerful because it has a good state - it has a good state and is prosperous and powerful because it has the right nation. The Germans are a naturally productive nation. If you were to switch the population of Germany with that of Somalia, you would find that Somalia would become prosperous and powerful and Germany would collapse in a matter of weeks. I think you should step away from the purely economic argument and look at it from a more cultural perspective. Some cultures build, other cultures destroy. Some cultures encourage productivity and security of property, other cultures encourage lethargy and theft. Mass immigration, especially from outside Europe, will only hurt Europe tremendously in the long run.
*In response saying that racism is not natural and that it is engineered and institutionalized by the ruling classes*
Really? After over 50 years since the end of segregation, our schools, churches, and neighborhoods remain just as segregated as they've always been, even though people now have more of a choice to live amongst other people.
Seems like people enjoy being segregated.
Pity they didn't have the balls to go all the way through with that assignment.
The moment some aspect of history becomes untouchable and unquestionable, it becomes a dogma, and teaching dogmatic science is no different from religious indoctrination, since it teaches to unquestioningly accept certain ideological tenets, the doubting of which is heresy.
Holocaust is just this kind of dogma, perhaps the most heavily politicized historical event and one of the most heavily politicized issues along with race and sexuality. Any kind of unbiased, objective research in Holocaust is practically impossible, since the researcher is expected simply to reaffirm previous finds, or is immediately denounced as a denier and Nazi sympathizer if his finds happen to contradict the officially approved version, much like there's hardly an objective research possible on race or sexuality where no political pressure would be involved.
Only the western world, which accounts for only a small percentage of the world's population, expects this brown, mediocre world race to come into existence. Only the western world is supposed to be multiracial, and in the rest of the world there is absolutely no interest in the matter. The Chinese want Chinese citizens, the Japanese want Japanese citizens, and in African countries different tribes generally don't even mix. In the very best case, you'd have a few countries in Western Europe along with Britain, the United States and Canada populated with mediocre brown people.
Even in the western world, the uncomfortable truth for these people is that we're not mixing. If you look at the different groups in society, you'll find that they usually keep to themselves. Especially the whites, who - knowingly or not - are the prime target of those who dream of a brown race, are very unlikely to have children outside of their race. As I've said on several occasions, the threat to traditionally white countries is not race-mixing, because non-white children born to one white parent and one non-white parent are only a tiny percentage of all non-white children born.
There are already countries full of mixed brown people. You can look at most of Central and South America to get the picture, or you could look to many Caribbean islands. And yet in those places, racism is alive and kicking. The lighter ones rule, even if they're not entirely white, and the darker ones serve. That last bit reminds me of India, where you can tell people's caste by their physical appearance.
You're mentioning countries that are racially and culturally homogenous, though, and adhere to 'high values'. In Norway, culture dictates that murder is always wrong. In Japan, culture dictates that to kill is a crime against honour, which is why Japan forces murderers into a psychologically destructive prison regime and executes them at random times. If you want another example of a country where not the lack of firearms but racial and cultural homogeneity lead to low homicide rates, that's Iceland. There are around 90,000 privately-owned firearms for 325,000 people in Iceland, and yet their homicide rates are among the world's lowest (save for some microstates and Japan).
In the United States, you'll find that it's not that easy. It's not rednecks with legal guns doing most of the killing, so taking their guns away would be fairly useless. Even if you take all civilian firearms, you'll find that homicide rates won't change much, as they haven't changed that much in places where firearms have been banned already. The United States is culturally and racially diverse, and you'll see that different cultures have different approaches to murder. African-Americans, for example, tend to be a lot more casual about violence in general and about murder, something which is exacerbated by the gangster culture that is omnipresent in their communities. As a result, African-Americans are the perpetrators in a majority of all homicides in the United States despite accounting for much less than one-fifth of the total population.
Basically, the only way to drastically lower homicide rates would be to export the current American population and import Iceland's, or Japan's, or Norway's. It's the attitude that kills, not the gun.
EDIT: Oh, and if you want the exact opposite of Iceland, try Kenya. That country has some very tough gun laws, and also one of the world's highest homicide rates.
Of course. Label me something offensive because of my opinion that the Native Americans chose to become egregious alcoholics and chose to live poverty-stricken lives after their lawful defeat in a time of war. We gave them every chance we could to make them good, hard working Americans and they chose not to be. We led the horse to water, but the majority chose to wallow in their self-pity and their anguish. I won't be blamed for their decisions, because I had nothing to do with what they decided to live like.
I'm neither a Nazi or a Confederate, so don't treat me like one.
No, I highly doubt you know how I think because we've never met or spoken on a personal level. I use common sense to understand the fact that homosexuality is wrong no matter how you look at it. Even if you look at it from a religious or atheist point of view, homosexuality is unnatural regardless of your stance. At least with heterosexuality, there is an outcome that results from opposite sex relationships that benefit society. There is no such benefit with homosexuality. So I don't an excuse to speak about homosexuality. No excuse is needed. If I see something is wrong, I'm going to speak up about it. The only defense you have is that there is a large, vocal minority people with a lot of money and thus a lot of political power, pushing the issue in society, and push people to accept something that most of the world believes is wrong.
Oh yes, they're perfect immigrants. Except for the fact they have no respect for our culture, break our laws, refuse to learn our language, come over illegally, end up mules or pawns for the cartels. You know, all that stuff.
They don't ALL do that stuff, I know, but I have yet to meet one that hasn't done at least one of those things, intentionally or not. Besides, there's too many of them, they've already supplanted African Americans as the largest minority(assuming they're not the majority already), and if deporting a whole lot of them, especially the illegals, stops me from getting ads on TV and the Internet in Spanish, so be it.
Because quite frankly, I don't want to live in a neighborhood surrounded by Mexicans living off free government welfare and healthcare who won't even speak the God damn mother tongue of the country they immigrated to, most likely illegally. I also laugh when I see them proudly wave the Mexican flag. Oh yes, you're so proud of your country, that's why you fled it to live in the more prosperous and stable neighboring country right?
I'm not against Mexicans, or immigrants. I'm against overly fraudulent immigrants. This is America and the majority should be American, otherwise it wouldn't be America anymore, and unlike some people who seem to think it would somehow be a good thing, I don't want us to fly the way of the Roman Empire.
*During a thread on a possible collapse of the thirld world followed by huge immigration waves to Europe*
In that case, I'll go off killing them, and I believe I won't be the only one by a long shot. The moment they've breached the gates of Europe in large numbers - not counting the millions already here - there is no point in continuing life anymore, since it will end in violence, and there is at least some superficial hope in attacking them and trying to drive them back using brute force. If it would even delay the inevitable by a few years, it would be well worth killing people. Unlike many Europeans, I'm not willing to sacrifice myself and my family to help total strangers.
And this is why I don't want mass immigration to Europe. It's just a matter of bringing what is to come forward and making the inevitable crash a lot more painful for everyone involved, and I don't want that. We stand a real chance of survival, as Europeans, but we're throwing it away by inviting people over who, in this case, will side with those who would seek to raid this entire continent the moment our defenses fall. My prediction factors this in, and even before the mass movement of people from Africa and the dry parts of the Middle East to Europe starts there will be rioting and unrest due to the large and concentrated non-western (especially West African, North African and East African) population already present.
No I am by no means a racist i'm a realist. People deserve only what they work for. It is very clear by the state of their countries that few Afrikan's have the drive to work for a greater country ( with the exception of a few leaders ). If something acts like an animal do you treat it like one ?
*During a discussion about refugees from poor countries*
Is it our problem ? This is why I think that bleeding hearts should pay an additional 10 percent taxes. Hell they should even be mandated (on top of that) to pay for the accommodation, healthcare and anything else "refugees" may need and they should also personally share their house with these "refugees" who just happen to have "lost" their passports so their actual origins cannot be validated. We get a lot of that here - unfortunately.
Like I said, I cannot rule out the possibility of mind control. it doesn;t even have to be through gmos, it could be through chemtrails or microchips. And they would still be taught to be pretend communists. A lot like 1984 when I think about it
Look, Christians do not hate gays, we in fact love them. When I say this, I truly mean it. Rather than trying to oppress them, what we are in fact doing is more akin to an intervention to help those whom we love stop living such an unhealthy and morally damaging lifestyle. They might not be hurting other people, but I do not think it is any coincidence that mental illness is many degrees worse among homosexuals, especially transgenders, than others, nor can I bring myself to ignore the fact that a disproportionate amount of them were molested as children, and it would be wilfully ignorant for me to pretend that homosexual promiscuity is not responsible for the spread and proliferation of AIDS and HIV around the world, along with many other lesser STDs due to the fact that homosexuals are so much more promiscuous and prone to unsafe sex than sexually healthy people. Finally, and most importantly of all, as Christians we must accept Bibical truth wherever possible, even if modern society disdains the truth, and so even if we end up living in a world in which gay "marriage" is legal in every part of every nation, all good Christians will continue to shout from the rooftops that this is wrong. The fact that all these social and health problems have arisen as a result of the acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" serves to show that, once again, the Word of God is indeed the best rulebook by which to run society and live one's life.
Sometimes, it is right to help someone even if they are only harming themselves. Just as I would want to see a heroin addict kick his habit, I also want to see homosexuals kick their habit. You are almost certainly the same on other issues that have not yet been pushed upon you since youth by the media. Take incest for example. I assume you are not a proponent of brothers and sisters legally having sex and even marrying simply because they are "consenting adults" who "aren't hurtning anyone"? Or what about bestiality? Before you tell me that "animals can't consent", consider the case of a man on Loveline who described how he "presents" and lets his dog enter him from behind. The very act is initiated by the dog and therefore is consensual. Is this sort of thing okay to you? Can you support this just because the dog and the man are having consensual sex and "aren't hurting anyone"? Please consider all of these things as well as all the other possible sexual perversions out there that could someday be argued are "normal" for the same reasons you currently believe homosexuality to be healthy and non-damaging. Sometimes, even if it might hurt their feelings, we must do all that is within our power to save a person. I care a lot more about the eternal soul of people caught up in the gay lifestyle than I do about their hurt feelings between now and their redemption.
*in response to a post containing a very long list of links that contain evidence for evolution*
Wouldn't surprise me if half those sources are funded by George Soros, the Smithsonian and the Rockefeller Foundation among other globalist yolk.
I really suggest you look deeper into who funds them.
